EPA

facebook_page
twitter_page

Last quote about EPA

Scott Pruitt
The days of regulation through litigation are over. We will no longer go behind closed doors and use consent decrees and settlement agreements to resolve lawsuits filed against the agency by special interest groups where doing so would circumvent the regulatory process set forth by Congress. Additionally, gone are the days of routinely paying tens of thousands of dollars in attorney's fees to these groups with which we swiftly settle.feedback
share this quote
Oct 17 2017
Scott Pruitt, Liz Bowman and Gina McCarthy, are the people who have been quoted the greatest number of times about EPA. You can find them on this page and an additional total of 295 people who have something to say about this topic. All the 549 quotes on this page are sorted by date and by name. You can also have access to the articles to get the context of the quotes. The most recent quote from Scott Pruitt is: “The days of regulation through litigation are over. We will no longer go behind closed doors and use consent decrees and settlement agreements to resolve lawsuits filed against the agency by special interest groups where doing so would circumvent the regulatory process set forth by Congress. Additionally, gone are the days of routinely paying tens of thousands of dollars in attorney's fees to these groups with which we swiftly settle.”.
Automatically powered by Storyzy
Take our quote verification challenge and find out !

All quotes about EPA

George Thurston

What they're considering doing is using some math manipulations to discount the value of health effects that happen from particulate matter, and the way they want to do this apparently to say that there's some magical level below which there are no effects of air pollution. That assumption is analogous to and as specious as saying passengers in automobiles are at absolutely no risk of being hurt in a car accident if they're traveling below the legal speed limit.feedback

George Thurston

There's a scientific consensus that we've been unable to find any threshold.feedback

Jonathan Buonocore

If you're an area that is at 11, and the Clean Power Plan will push you to 9, under that assumption it says there are no health benefits. There's no evidence this is true. Time and time again … we keep finding health benefits when air quality gets better, even in areas that are in attainment with the rules.feedback

Ryan Zinke

I think we should never hide from our history or erase our history. I think we should embrace the history and understand the faults and learn from it. But when you try to erase history, what happens is you also erase how it happened and why it happened and the ability to learn from it.feedback

George Thurston

There are lots of studies, including my own , that show that lower pollution levels reduce adverse health effects, even when it's below the standard.feedback

Lisa Friedman - The New York Times

But those adept at reading between the lines of dense federal documents say the subtext reads more like: 'Don't hold your breath.feedback

Jennifer A. Dlouhy - Bloomberg

The EPA has historically said there is no safe threshold for particulate matter, a conclusion that dovetails with a series of public health studies and underlies a host of other federal regulations governing power plant pollution.feedback

Ryan Zinke

No monuments are going to be removed from federal land. Where do you start and where do you stop?.. If you're a native Indian, I can tell you, you're not very happy about the history of General Sherman or perhaps President Grant.feedback

Chrissy Mann - Sierra Club

Taken in combination with the Clean Power Plan, what we're seeing is an attempt from this administration and this EPA to dig in their pockets and find whatever kind of tricks they think are going to stick to provide a lifeline to the coal industry across the country and here in Texas. It's disappointing.feedback

Scott Pruitt

I'm here to make an announcement that's very, very important for you. Tomorrow, in Washington, D.C., I'll be signing a proposed rule to withdraw the so-called Clean Power Plan of the past administration and thus begin the effort to withdraw that rule.feedback

Scott Pruitt

To withdraw the so-called clean power plan of the past administration. That rule really was about picking winners and losers. The past administration was unapologetic, they were using every bit of power, authority to use the EPA to pick winners and losers on how we pick electricity in this country. That is wrong.feedback

Dave Roberts

We return to the central dilemma facing conservatives here: They are determined to protect coal, but there's no way to reduce emissions from the electricity sector without closing coal plants (or switching them to a different fuel).feedback

Scott Pruitt

Between the years 2000 and 2014, the United States reduced its carbon emissions by more than 18 percent and this was accomplished largely by American innovation and technology from the private sector rather than government mandate.feedback

Laura Anderko

Science shows that warmer temperatures can reduce air quality, due to increases in ozone and particulate matter.feedback

Anthony Roberts

This new treatment plant will see zero mine water discharge into the Coxs river, is supported by the EPA and WaterNSW and has separately been approved by the independent Planning Assessment Commission.feedback

Liz Bowman

We can't comment on the authenticity of the document, but what we can say is that the Obama Administration pushed the bounds of their authority so far that the Supreme Court issued a stay - the first in history - to prevent the so-called 'Clean Power Plan' from taking effect.feedback

Hal Quinn

The Clean Power Plan represented an unlawful attempt to transform the nation's power grid ... and raise costs on American consumers.feedback

James Inhofe

I am pleased that President Trump has nominated Andrew Wheeler to serve as deputy administrator at the EPA. There is no one more qualified than Andrew to help Scott Pruitt restore EPA to its proper size and scope. I am confident he will serve the American people and President Trump with exceptional skill in this position, and I look forward to ensuring his swift confirmation.feedback

Scott Pruitt

Andrew will bring extraordinary credentials to EPA that will greatly assist the Agency as we work to implement our agenda. He has spent his entire career working to improve environmental outcomes for Americans across the country and understands the importance of providing regulatory certainty for our country.feedback

Jahan Wilcox

We will respond to Senator Grassley and his colleagues through the proper channel.feedback

Sheldon Whitehouse

In Andrew Wheeler, the President has tapped yet another fossil fuel industry lobbyist to help in the capture of the Environmental Protection Agency for big polluters. He shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the office to which he's been nominated, but here we are.feedback

Lamar Smith

In recent years, SAB experts have become nothing more than rubber stamps who approve all of the EPA's regulations. The EPA routinely stacks this board with friendly scientists who receive millions of dollars in grants from the federal government. The conflict of interest here is clear.feedback

Steve Daines

Today marks the beginning of restoring private property rights while protecting our environment. Out-of-state D.C. bureaucrats shouldn't impose regulations that hurt Montana farmers, ranchers and landowners.feedback

Richard Painter

The problem is we have a number of cabinet officials who have been using private aircraft in the same manner, including the Treasury Secretary, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and of course, we've got the President himself, who wants to hop on down to Mar-a-Lago every other week in the wintertime, and those trips can cost about a million a pop.feedback

Charles Grassley

I'll do all I can to see if this proposal is really moving forward, and if so, I'll work to shut it down.feedback

Liz Bowman

EPA is currently seeking input from all stakeholders involved. Nothing has been finalized at this time.feedback

Liz Bowman

What you are referring to is a secured communication area in the administrator's office so secured calls can be received and made. Federal agencies need to have one of these so that secured communications, not subject to hacking from the outside, can be held. It's called a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF). This is something which a number, if not all, Cabinet offices have and EPA needs to have updated.feedback

J.P. Freire

We want to eliminate confusion by removing outdated language first and making room to discuss how we're protecting the environment and human health by partnering with states and working within the law.feedback

Stan Meiburg

If you lose power in food processing plants, you lose some of the ability to handle the food safety, whether in refrigeration or other parts of the process.feedback

Stan Meiburg

The main concerns there have been to make sure that you avoid contamination, and particularly, avoid contact [with] ... food that has been in contact with flood waters.feedback

Ziyad Al-Aly

Data on the relationship between air pollution and kidney disease in humans has been scarce. However, once we analyzed the data, the link between air pollution and the development of kidney disease was clear. The beauty of using both EPA and NASA data is that the agencies used two distinct techniques for collecting data, yet the results were similar. This constellation of findings suggests that chronic exposure to air pollution is a significant risk factor for the development and progression of kidney disease.feedback

Christine Todd Whitman

It was something for which Congress had no appetite. They just were not willing to consider anything that had the word 'tax' in it.feedback

Marianne Horinko

Every federal agency is having to tighten its belt right now. But I think EPA's core mission and its values are too important to the American people to have drastic cuts. I think, eventually, the EPA, and Superfund in particular, will continue to assume an important role.feedback

Christine Todd Whitman

These aren't Republican and Democrat issues. These are people issues. These are about human health and the environment. Mother Nature could care less whether you're a Republican or a Democrat or which state you live in.feedback

Christine Todd Whitman

It would be good to get the Superfund tax back because the industries were able to absorb that a whole lot more easily than the individual . . . or a taxpayer in a local community.feedback

Corey Booker

If everyone in Washington lived within a mile of a Superfund site, I have a feeling there'd be a lot more urgency. But because it's not affecting our families or our children, it doesn't seem that we have that kind of urgency. That's just not right, and I'm very angry about it.feedback

John Barrasso

Democrats would rather play politics with nominations, than see polluters held accountable.feedback

Jeff Merkley

Dourson's work presents a disturbing track record of consistently claiming that these chemicals are much safer than independent scientists have determined.feedback

Tom Carper

It is imperative that we make sure EPA is up to the task of implementing those critical reforms in a credible and objective way, and giving all Americans the protection and peace of mind they deserve. Based on his record, I'm not convinced Dr. Dourson is the right person for this important job.feedback

Richard Denison

How does he put aside a 20-year career of being paid by the industry to do science in a way that favors their desired outcomes? He creates an aura of legitimacy around a process that's fundamentally conflicted.feedback

Matt Miller

The resistance, the non-responsiveness and the delays that we're encountering now at EPA are beyond anything we've seen at EPA before and they're beyond what we're seeing at other agencies.feedback

John O'Grady

We have a laboratory in Houston that is state of the art and is situated directly in an industrial petrochemical complex. And that laboratory is slated for closure. Why? How much money are we going to save with that?feedback

Scott Pruitt

It is important that we give the existing rule a hard look and consider improvements.feedback

Ken Kopocis

We bent over backwards for industry both in terms of the substance of the rule and in terms of the timing.feedback

David Gray

EPA completed site assessments at all 43 Superfund sites affected by the storm. Of these sites, two (San Jacinto and U.S. Oil Recovery) require additional assessment efforts.feedback

Lisa Evans

I see a severe problem with the lack of funding for EPA, because it renders them unable to respond to a disaster like this. One has to budget for these inevitable contingencies, otherwise you can leave those communities high and dry.feedback

Dennis Winkler

Some is on our property and some is on adjacent property which has already been cleaned up. We do not expect a long-term environmental impact. We do not expect there will be any air impact or health impacts.feedback

Terri White

Initial reports were based on observation. Some spills were already being cleaned up by the time EPA or other officials arrived to assess them and others had already migrated offsite.feedback

Liz Bowman

EPA is focused on the safety of those affected by Hurricane Harvey and providing emergency response support – not engaging in attempts to politicize an ongoing tragedy.feedback

Scott Pruitt

We're giving long-serving, hard-working employees the opportunity to retire early. We're proud to report that we're reducing the size of government, protecting taxpayer dollars, and staying true to our core mission of protecting the environment and American jobs.feedback

Scott Pruitt

The most we can do is help people in these areas by monitoring drinking water and respond to real and tangible issues.feedback

Sally Buzbee - Associated Press

AP's exclusive story was the result of on the ground reporting at Superfund sites in and around Houston, as well as AP's strong knowledge of these sites and EPA practices.feedback

Wes Highfield

Yesterday as these large retention ponds filled up, eight feet deep in places, kids were swimming in them, and that's not good.feedback

Jonas Oxgaard - Sanford Bernstein

If the EPA imposed a April 15 cut-off date for dicamba spraying, that would be catastrophic for Xtend – it invalidates the entire point of planting it.feedback

Christine Todd Whitman

We didn't do a political screening on every grant, because many of them were based on science, and political appointees don't have that kind of background.feedback

James L. Connaughton

Some of the efforts might be more transparent than others, but let's not fool ourselves.feedback

Liz Bowman

It's a cutting-edge solution to one of the world's oldest challenges, it's working, and there is a lot still to be done. Let's be clear, we are talking about $20,000 for a one-day workshop on bedbugs.feedback

Ruth Kerzee

People really do need this. For low-income communities, it's a really desperate situation.feedback

Christine Todd Whitman

It was also good for human health in those countries, which we wanted to have stable for national security.feedback

Greg Abbott

People have to be very cautious as they go through the rebuilding process ... The EPA is monitoring that, the EPA is going to get on top of that.feedback

Charles Breyer

Volkswagen has indeed been held responsible. But because Volkswagen's conduct took place during manufacturing, Congress determined that EPA, not the 50 States, was best situated to regulate it.feedback

Scott Pruitt

EPA has emergency response personnel on the scene and the Agency is currently reviewing data received from an aircraft that surveyed the scene early this morning. This information indicates that there are no concentrations of concern for toxic materials reported at this time. We will consider using any authority we have to further address the situation to protect human health and the environment.feedback

Eric T. Schneiderman

Scott Pruitt cannot simply wish away the facts by giving governors bad legal advice. We'll continue to fight to ensure that the federal government fulfills its legal responsibility to New Yorkers' health and environment.feedback

Mark Behan - General Electric

New York State approved and oversaw the dredging project and was instrumental in every major decision related to the project. Its criticism flies in the face of the most up-to-date scientific data from the river itself.feedback

Scott Pruitt

This is unacceptable. A remedy that will take generations to safeguard public health and the environment is clearly not protective.feedback

Kerry Emanuel

If you look at long-term effects of hurricanes on society, the impacts are more about water than wind. Harvey is an example of how vulnerable modern society is to rainstorms as the climate warms. It's solid physics.feedback

Carl Icahn

I believe that in the EPA, concerning regulations relative to refineries, you really need to roll back almost yesterday. As far as I'm concerned, I don't have any specific duties. What I'm going to be doing is basically talk to Donald as I've talked before.feedback

Carl Icahn

If you look at the EPA, which I've talked about quite a bit, there is nothing more absurd – and I've talked about this before – than this regulation concerning the obligated party, being refineries.feedback

Brandon Vail

When he took office he stopped the EPA's Waters of the US rule, where anything that would flow into a navigable tributary would have had jurisdiction under the EPA. Well, navigable tributaries go through half the land I farm. So you're saying a ditch I put in my field to drain the water off, then that the land comes under your jurisdiction? You can tell me when I can go into it, and what I can use as fertilizer?feedback

Matt Gaetz

The EPA has been doing some drastic things. They have exceeded their original mission substantially under both Republican and Democratic presidents and violated the sovereignty of the states. I think we need to start fresh.feedback

Xavier Becerra

Administrator Pruitt and the Trump administration are not above the law. The public has a right to know whether Administrator Pruitt and the EPA have complied with federal ethics laws. Administrator Pruitt's ability to serve as an impartial decision maker merits close examination.feedback

Eric Schaeffer

If this drop-off in environmental enforcement continues, it will leave more people breathing more air pollution or swimming in waterways with more waste.feedback

Terry Walker

As the system progressed and it got closer to EPA approval, the board kept asking for local data. That did not happen.feedback

Sarah Alsager

The EPA is the federal agency responsible for approving and registering pesticides for sale and use. The Department does not perform field testing or solicit local input.feedback

Heidi Heitkamp

They're grateful for the rollback of what we all considered onerous regulations against industry; onerous overreach by EPA (Environmental Protection Agency).feedback

Elena Saxonhouse - Sierra Club

Pruitt's statements on CNBC were not merely a scientific 'opinion', as EPA's letter suggests. With his many close ties to the fossil fuel industry, it is clear they were a politically motivated attempt to obfuscate basic facts that EPA scientists have studied and verified for years.feedback

Donald J. Trump

As you have seen, I have kept that promise as President. We are putting our coal miners back to work. We have ended the war on beautiful, clean coal. We have stopped the EPA intrusion. American coal exports are already up.feedback

Nancy Grantham

I wanted to make sure that they knew it existed. That's just how I operate. I don't like to be surprised, and I assume others don't like to be, either.feedback

Robert Giuffra - Volkswagen

You run the math on the Wyoming penalties. It would be higher than the (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) penalty Volkswagen paid, which was $1.45 billion.feedback

Elizabeth Betsy Southerland

There is no question, the administration is seriously weakening EPA's mission by vigorously pursuing an industry deregulation approach and defunding implementation of environmental programs. I felt it was my civic duty to explain the impact of this administration's policies on public health and safety.feedback

Elizabeth Betsy Southerland

The best case for our children and grandchildren is that they will pay the polluters bills through increased state taxes, new user fees, and higher water and sewer bills. The worst case is that they will have to live with increased public health and safety risks and a degraded environment.feedback

Jahan Wilcox

It's hard to believe that Elizabeth Southerland is retiring because of a budget proposal and not because she's eligible for her government pension. We wish Elizabeth Southerland the best in her retirement, and the EPA will continue to refocus on our core mission of protecting our air, land and water.feedback

Stanley Stan Meiburg

We thought, Now's the opportunity to do it, and to do it in the way that told the history of the agency.feedback

Christopher Sellers

It gives a good sense of what EPA has done over the last 40 years of its existence. It really explains what's at stake in having an agency like the EPA and having environmental laws to begin with.feedback

Jeannine Ginivan - Volkswagen

Drivers "may notice some differences in vehicle operating characteristics after the modification, but no significant changes to key vehicle attributes are expected, including reliability, durability, vehicle performance, drivability or other driving characteristics.feedback

Bob Dinneen

We are still reviewing the decision, but the fact the court has affirmed our position that EPA abused its general waiver authority by including factors such as demand and infrastructure in a waiver intended to be based solely on available supply is a great victory for consumers and the RFS program.feedback

Liz Bowman

Administrator Pruitt works long hours and is available around the clock. He is extremely focused and disciplined, which is evident by the fact that he spearheaded over two dozen significant regulatory actions since being sworn in.feedback

Tom Udall

Congress must act because Administrator Pruitt has shown that he won't. The science hasn't changed since EPA proposed banning chlorpyrifos in 2015 and 2017. Only the politics have.feedback

Al Gore

President Donald Trump once called climate change a Chinese hoax (although he later claimed he was joking), and the man he appointed to head the Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt, even denied the most basic scientific finding concerning global warming: that CO2 emissions trap heat in the atmosphere. That fact was proven by scientists more than 150 years ago! These misinformation efforts have thus far been all too effective. They've obstructed progress by normalizing outright denial of science so effectively that the U.S. has more climate change deniers than any other country.feedback

Marc Edwards

The road to Flint was paved with this nexus of complacency. Water utilities were cheating, EPA was looking the other way, and health departments were all too happy to let that occur because they wanted to keep their focus on lead paint. This is the one lead source that is government owned, government controlled, and directly affects a product intended for human consumption.feedback

Scott Pruitt

Human activity [is not the] primary contributor to the global warming that we see.feedback

Eric T. Schneiderman

The Trump EPA continues to put special interests before the health and safety of the people they serve. It's simply outrageous to block these common sense protections – and attorneys general will keep fighting back when our communities are put at risk.feedback

Liz Bowman

Administrator Pruitt makes no apologies for having a candid dialogue about climate science.feedback

Liz Purchia Gannon

The American people aren't paying taxes for part-time Cabinet officials.feedback

Liz Bowman

Administrator Pruitt is committed to serving the president by leading the Environmental Protection Agency; he is not running for elected office. The administrator's travel, whether to Utah, Michigan or Oklahoma, all serves the purpose of hearing from hard-working Americans about how E.P.A. can better serve the American people.feedback

Ian LeMay

Calls for a ban are not grounded in sound science. Further, unnecessary and unjustified restrictions limiting the utility of chlorpyrifos would disrupt pest management programs and could significantly change general insecticide use patterns and result in significant economic harm to California growers.feedback

Paul Towers - Pesticide Action Network

The evidence is very, very strong and compelling – some of the best of any single pesticide in the world.feedback

Al Gore

Trump has surrounded himself with climate deniers, They're doing their best to dismantle the Environmental Protection Agency and anything that promotes good policies to solve the climate crisis. It was cordial and mutually respectful and he listened and participated. I came away with the impression that he would come to his senses.feedback

Myron Ebell

They're trying to freeze things to make sure nothing happens they don't want to have happen, so any regulations going forward, contracts, grants, hires, they want to make sure to look at them first.feedback

Rick Perry

No, most likely the primary control knob is the ocean waters and this environment that we live in.feedback

Doug Ericksen

We'll take a look at what's happening so that the voice coming from the EPA is one that's going to reflect the new administration.feedback

Seth Meyers

If you've been following the recent saga of the Republican healthcare bill, which, once again, failed to get the necessary votes to pass, you might think the Trump administration isn't accomplishing anything. But there is one department, the EPA, that has actually been quietly implementing big changes, unfortunately for the benefit of a select few.feedback

Patti Goldman

We are disappointed. The tragedy is children are being exposed to this pesticide that can cause brain damage. That's going to happen for a longer period of time.feedback

Stephen Colbert

So then we found out there was also a sixth person. That's more people than are currently working at Trump's EPA. Now, no one is saying that there were seven people in the meeting. Because it turns out there were at least eight people in the room. Eight. That's not even counting the other Russians that were nesting inside of them.feedback

Scott Pruitt

What VW did was very, very troublesome and we need to make sure it doesn't happen again. Look at VW, and Fiat – you have this Fiat case that is on the horizon as well. The emails and the communications that I'm aware of – it was strategic and intentional and should be dealt with very aggressively. I wouldn't call what was done too light at all.feedback

Scott Pruitt

Look at VW, and Fiat – you have this Fiat case that is on the horizon as well. The emails and the communications that I'm aware of – it was strategic and intentional and should be dealt with very aggressively. I wouldn't call what was done too light at all. We've reached out to the California governor as part of our CAFE midterm review in 2018. I'm hopeful that the state of California, the governor there, will respond with reciprocity and we are working through that process.feedback

Peter Zalzal - EDF

The court reaffirmed the importance of ensuring that its decision vacating Administrator Pruitt's unlawful suspension of these clean-air protections limiting oil and gas pollution swiftly take effect.feedback

Scott Pruitt

If you're going to win and if you're so certain about it, come and do your deal. They shouldn't be scared of the debate and discussion.feedback

Liz Bowman

The agency was not going to meet the original deadline for all 50 states. This administrator doesn't like being outside the bounds of statutory deadlines so he said extend it. We're continuing our work.feedback

Scott Pruitt

We have nothing to be apologetic about. It was absolutely a decision of courage and fortitude and truly represented an America First strategy with respect to how we are leading on this issue.feedback

Scott Pruitt

It is a question about how much we contribute to it. How do we measure that with precision? And by the way, are we on an unsustainable path? And is it causing an existential threat?feedback

Scott Pruitt

There are lots of questions that have not been asked and answered. Who better to do that than a group of scientists… getting together and having a robust discussion for all the world to see. I think so… You want this to be on full display. I think the American people would be very interested in consuming that. I think they deserve it.feedback

David Doniger - Natural Resources Defense Council

This ruling declares EPA's action illegal – and slams the brakes on Trump Administration's brazen efforts to put the interests of corporate polluters ahead of protecting the public and the environment. The ruling recognizes that EPA lacks the authority to simply scrap these critical protections. And it shows the courts are going to enforce the rule of law on health and environment. The Trump Administration's war on the environment and our health has hit a brick wall.feedback

Scott Pruitt

Just because you provide a time for implementation or compliance that's longer doesn't mean that you're going to necessarily reverse or redirect the rule.feedback

Cecilia Malmström - European Trade

The Japanese don't agree with some of the key technical issues (in the deal) which are fundamental for the EU, especially those referred to investment.feedback

Thomas Burke

These kind of actions will put a brake on the progress we've seen. Having worked in fence-line communities and places with contaminated water, I don't think people there are saying 'we are clean enough, let's roll things back'. There's a very obvious shift at the EPA to make it more business-friendly. Maybe that's not a bad thing for the business community, but I am very concerned this will impact the health of millions of people.feedback

David Doniger - Natural Resources Defense Council

The court says you can consider changing the rules but you have to do it the normal way, with a comment period. You can't yank it out of existence on your say-so.feedback

Richard J. Lazarus - Harvard Law Review

Changing the rules mid-stream can occur only after a thorough administrative review, including public notice and opportunity to comment, that ensures that there are good reasons for the change, backed up by sound policy and science.feedback

Richard J. Lazarus - Harvard Law Review

The court's ruling is yet another reminder, now in the context of environmental protection, that the federal judiciary remains a significant obstacle to the president's desire to order immediate change. The D.C. Circuit's ruling today makes clear that neither the president nor his EPA administrator, Scott Pruitt, can by fiat unilaterally and instantaneously repeal or otherwise stay the effectiveness of the environmental protection rules put into place during the Obama administration.feedback

Liz Bowman

They did not discuss chlorpyrifos. During the same trip he also met with the Canadian minister of natural resources, and CEOs and executives from other companies attending the trade show.feedback

Liz Bowman

Despite several years of study, EPA has concluded that the science addressing chlorpyrifos remains unresolved.feedback

Timothy Ballo

This is a big win for public health and a wake-up call for this administration. While Scott Pruitt and Donald Trump continue to bend over backwards to do the bidding of Big Oil, Earthjustice and our clients and partners will use every tool at our disposal to hold them fully accountable for their actions.feedback

Austin Evers

President Trump tapping Carl Icahn to give advice on energy regulations is the definition of conflict of interest. We need to know what kind of influence Mr. Icahn has at the EPA to see if he has been shaping energy policy to benefit himself at the expense of American families. It seems Mr. Icahn, like so many other Trump administration officials, may be using his position for his own personal financial benefit.feedback

Brian Christman - American Lung Association

It is clear from this study that there is not really a safe level of air pollution. The Clean Air Act and the Environmental Protection Agency have done great work, but the data indicates that additional effort to reduce PM2.5 and ozone would save lives. As a matter of fact, further reduction in PM2.5 below the (federal standard) of 12 micrograms per cubic meter are likely to be even more effective than previous reductions.feedback

Patrick Leahy

This budget that you've proposed doesn't uphold your agency's mission. We ought to be doubling down on our investment to protect our environment for the sake of our children and grandchildren. We ought to curb the effects of climate change. Instead, the administration is tearing down the legacy of the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act.feedback

Lisa Murkowski

We have rejected changes like these in past, and I will certainly push my colleagues to do so again this year.feedback

Tom Udall

The budget request before us today is downright offensive. I can't square this with your rhetoric about returning EPA to its core responsibilities. Nothing was spared. EPA's core is hollowed out. … These cuts aren't an intent to rein in spending, they are an intentional step to undermine science and ignore environmental and public health realities.feedback

Lamar Smith

Dr. Swackhamer and the Minority have repeatedly stated that she was testifying in her personal capacity and not in connection with her role as chair of the EPA Board of Scientific Counselors. Any attempt by EPA. to ensure that what Congress heard in testimony about official EPA. matters included the full breadth of information seems entirely appropriate. Unfortunately, the Minority has made the choice to waste taxpayer dollars as part of a politically motivated agenda.feedback

Michael Brune - Sierra Club

Once again, the Trump administration has agreed to do the bidding of the worst polluters in our country, and once again it's putting the health of American families and communities at risk. We will fight this and every other attempt by polluters and the Trump administration to destroy our water resources.feedback

Hal Quinn

This sets in motion a welcome correction to a deeply problematic regulation that ignored the careful balance that Congress struck between federal and state water regulation and constitutional limits on federal authority.feedback

Howard Learner

This foolish rollback of clean water standards rejects years of work building stakeholder input and scientific data support, and it imperils the progress for safe clean drinking water in the Midwest.feedback

Catherine McCabe - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

At this time, we do not believe that the data, the science or the law support the EPA imposing a requirement on GE to do more dredging.feedback

Scott Pruitt

We are taking significant action to return power to the states and provide regulatory certainty to our nation's farmers and businesses. This is the first step in the two-step process to redefine 'waters of the U.S.' and we are committed to moving through this re-evaluation to quickly provide regulatory certainty, in a way that is thoughtful, transparent and collaborative with other agencies and the public.feedback

Debbie Chizewer

The health department recommended [EPA] do something [throughout those decades], but it didn't and there's no explanation for why.feedback

Debbie Chizewer

When you think about this case and the number of impacted residents and the money that it takes to clean this up and then you look at the possibility of EPA not having funding to do this kind of work at this site or around the country, it's extremely upsetting. We would continue to have cases like East Chicago for many decades to come.feedback

Robb Fraley - Monsanto Company

I would put RNA in the suite of really advanced, next-generation technologies that are adding to the excitement from a research perspective.feedback

Liz Bowman

Streamlining and reorganizing is good government and important to maximizing taxpayer dollars. This includes looking at developing opportunities for individuals to retire early. It's a process that mirrors what the Obama Administration EPA did about four years ago, to ensure that payroll expenses do not overtake funds used for vital programs to protect the environment.feedback

Scott Pruitt

With respect to the proposed cuts on personnel, that is something that we plan to achieve through attrition, continuation of the hiring freeze and the initiation of buyouts. About 20 percent of the agency is eligible for retirement today. That's going to increase over the next several years.feedback

Shaye Wolf

Perry has the science exactly backward. Far from being climate change's key cause, the world's oceans are actually another victim of greenhouse pollution. Our oceans absorb millions of tons of carbon dioxide a day, making them dangerously acidic. They've also soaked up most of man-made global warming's excess heat, putting tremendous stress on marine life.feedback

Rick Perry

We're not necessarily going to be cutting a bunch of programs out in totality. What we are going to be doing is looking at these agency functions: What can be consolidated? How do you get rid of duplicative efforts? Being a skeptic about some of these issues is quite all right. This idea that science is absolutely settled and that if you don't believe it's settled, you're somehow or another a Neanderthal, that is so inappropriate.feedback

Scott Pruitt

I believe we can fulfill the mission of our agency with a trimmed budget, with proper leadership and management. We recognize the importance of the Great Lakes. We recognize the importance to the citizens in that region, and we're going to work with Congress to ensure that those objectives are obtained.feedback

Nita Lowey

I'll get straight to it. The fiscal year 2018 budget request for EPA is a disaster.feedback

Scott Pruitt

About 20 percent of the agency is eligible for retirement today, and that's going to increase over the next several years. That's how we're going to address the proposed cuts to personnel.feedback

David Joyce - GE Aviation

Cleaning up the lakes isn't about correcting mistakes from the past, but creating new opportunities and a brighter future for our shoreline communities.feedback

George Wyeth

We're people who worked at EPA over years and decades. We've seen lots of different policy approaches, lots of different policy viewpoints. [But] when you look at a budget proposal of this kind, it raises serious concerns about the agency's capacity and integrity.feedback

Peter Zalzal - EDF

It is unconscionable that this unprecedented loophole for oil and gas pollution will increase dangerous smog, methane, and cancer-causing benzene when commonsense solutions are at hand. Every day that these clean air safeguards are delayed, thousands of oil and gas wells across the country will emit dangerous pollution in the air, harming the health of our children.feedback

Kathleen Sgamma

Both rules vastly exceeded federal authority. In the case of the BLM rule, the bureau tried to assume authority that resides with the states and EPA to regulate air quality. In the case of the EPA rule, the agency attempted to regulate methane without conducting a methane endangerment finding, as required by the Clean Air Act. The actions today by the agencies are a first step to correcting that federal regulatory overreach.feedback

Meleah Geertsma - Natural Resources Defense Council

In its haste to do favors for its polluter cronies, the Trump EPA has broken the law. The Trump administration does not have unlimited power to put people's health in jeopardy with unchecked, unilateral executive action like this. Stopping methane leaks is a no-brainer -- avoiding wasted gas, creating jobs, fighting climate change and cutting cancer-causing pollution all at once. We will not stand for this blatant polluter giveaway.feedback

Alyssa Hall

I felt like we were being attacked on a daily basis from headquarters. A lot of my projects were being cancelled or postponed indefinitely, so I was left with nothing to do. If it was a project associated with climate change people at headquarters would pick up the phone rather than email. Staff were paranoid that their programs were going to get cut if they mentioned climate change. One day it was fine and then it was like you were being slapped in the face every day.feedback

Scott Pruitt

This is not a message to anyone in the world that America should be apologetic of its CO2 position. We're actually making tremendous advances. We're just not going to agree to frameworks and agreements that put us at an economic disadvantage and hurt citizens across this country.feedback

Cynthia Giles

To bring cases you need money for monitoring equipment, engineering issues, management of millions of documents – all that would be zeroed out in this budget. Enforcement is focused on the biggest threats to public health, cases the states can't and won't do. The message this budget sends is that enforcement laws aren't a priority for this administration, which is very concerning.feedback

Liz Bowman

America's miners and drillers are getting back to work under President Trump with the seventh straight month of job creation, after 25 consecutive months of decline in the previous administration.feedback

Liz Bowman

Administrator Pruitt was referring to mining, which includes coal.feedback

Peter Zalzal - EDF

It's something that states like Wyoming, California, Colorado and Ohio are already doing.feedback

Peter Zalzal - EDF

It delivers almost half of the smog reductions and more than half of the methane reductions and 90 percent of toxic air pollution reductions. There's absolutely no assurance to the public, who stand to benefit from these protections, that this will happen in the absence of enforceable safeguards. It's something that states like Wyoming, California, Colorado and Ohio are already doing.feedback

Chris Wallace

As the president's EPA administrator, isn't that a conversation you need to have?feedback

Laurence Tubiana

Of course US government CAN legally downsize its contribution but SHOULD Not.feedback

Kellyanne Conway

President Trump believes the climate is changing and he believes pollutants are part of the equation.feedback

David Konisky

I do think the refusal to acknowledge climate change as a serious problem facing the United States and the world, as well as the reckless decision to pull out of the Paris Agreement, does risk alienating moderate Republicans and Independents.feedback

Chris Wallace

Aren't you focusing on the wrong thing? Aren't you and the president focusing on protecting the horse-and-buggy business just as cars come online?feedback

Scott Pruitt

When we joined Paris, the rest of the world applauded … because it put this country at disadvantage. It's a bad deal for this country. We're going to make sure as we make deals we're going to put the interests of America first. The focus in the last several weeks was centered on the merits and demerits of the Paris climate agreement. The president has indicated the climate is changing, it's always changing. I've indicated the same. Well, frankly, George, I think the whole question is an effort of trying to get it off the point.feedback

Scott Pruitt

This president's deregulation agenda, particularly in the energy space, is making a substantial impact around the country. No. I think what's also being missed here is when you look at how we generate power in this country, we need fuel diversity.feedback

J. David Cox

Y'all go downstairs now. Y'all go downstairs and send me up some more EPA folk.feedback

Scott Pruitt

With this action, you have declared that the people are rulers of this country once again.feedback

Scott Pruitt

The world applauded when we joined Paris, and you know why? I think they applauded because they knew it was going to put this country at an economic disadvantage. And the reason European leaders ... that I think they want us to stay in, is because they know it will continue to shackle our economy. The United States has a seat at the table. After all, we're the United States.feedback

John Walke

Mr. Pruitt has emerged as a foreman of a wrecking crew, rather than an architect. It is easy to initiate that hostile agenda with a skeleton staff, press releases and instructions to Justice Department attorneys to file motions in court. That's the easy part. The hard part is navigating the multi-year legal process to actually reverse legal protections, withstand the political outcry and to have those reversals upheld in court.feedback

Drew Edmondson

While I'm disappointed in what he's doing [in Washington], I'm certainly not surprised. Pruitt's positions are very similar to what the president enunciated during the campaign.feedback

Liz Bowman

Administrator Pruitt is implementing President Trump's executive orders to protect the environment, save manufacturing jobs and promote American energy independence.feedback

Scott Segal

He's not afraid to express his point of view. He's a pretty bold guy. The White House culture is much more, you go in hitting and attack.feedback

Basil Seggos

We strongly disagree with their conclusions and maintain that the significant amount of contamination left in the river threatens both public health and the environment.feedback

Kirsten Gillibrand

I am disappointed that the EPA couldn't muster up the courage to do the job they set out to do and clean up the Hudson. This decision is now entering a 30-day comment period before it is made final, and I encourage all New Yorkers to raise their voices and demand that the EPA finish the job of removing the remaining PCBs.feedback

David Doniger - Natural Resources Defense Council

On the heels of news reports that the U.S. will walk away from a global commitment to combat climate change, President Trump is sabotaging headway the U.S. has already made. The Trump administration is giving its friends in the oil and gas industry a free pass to continue polluting our air. ... We will fight Trump's latest polluter giveaway in court.feedback

William Ruckelshaus

His climate-related budget cuts reflect willful ignorance of an enormous threat.feedback

Christine Todd Whitman

A budget to me was always a policy document. Every regulation promulgated by EPA is based in science.feedback

Thomas Burke

God forbid, if we have to clean up a water supply after a terrorist activity, it [would be] in this office.feedback

Thomas Burke

I'm very concerned the IRIS program will be zeroed out. There's an endless challenge by polluters to delay the science.feedback

Paul Ryan

The aspiration and the goal [of this budget] is right on the target.feedback

Tom Carper

I think if [President Obama's EPA administrator] Gina McCarthy had been so inept in responding to the inquiries of our Republican colleagues, they would have shut down the Senate.feedback

Jose Tarazona

The observer from the US-EPA [Rowlands] informed participants during the teleconference about potential flaws in the Kumar (2001) study related to viral infections.feedback

Mick Mulvaney

During the previous administration the pendulum went too far to one side where we were spending too much of your money on climate change and not very efficiently. We don't get rid of it here. Do we target it? Sure. Do a lot of the EPA reductions aim at reducing the focus on climate science? Yes. Does it mean we are anti-science? Absolutely not. I don't need to take this much of your money and to bury it in the ground out in western Texas someplace for domestic security and national security reasons when we have domestic surpluses like we do.feedback

Myron Ebell

I said several positive and a couple very positive things about Scott Pruitt as EPA Administrator. He's got people on different sides and they are all fighting over who gets these jobs and nobody has the clout except the president to say, Hey fix this, let's get this done.feedback

Leila Conners

Americans are often under the belief that the EPA or their local state environmental agency is going to save them from environmental pollution, and that is simply not the case.feedback

Bill Becker

These cuts will mean delays in meeting health-based air quality standards, less inspections against noncomplying facilities, decreased monitoring in metropolitan areas, and fewer agency staff to address air quality problems.feedback

Charlie Dent

We want a functioning EPA and want their decisions to be based on best practices and science. I don't think anyone is here to kill the agency, we're here to make it work better.feedback

Bill Becker

In short, these cuts will result in more people dying prematurely and getting sick unnecessarily.feedback

Myron Ebell

Paris and the endangerment finding are the two big outstanding issues. It's the first wave of things that are necessary to turn this country around, particularly in the heartland states. The new president doesn't have long before inertia sets in. Pruitt was an excellent choice to head the EPA, and minor disagreements aside, his recent actions have made me even more confident that he will be an outstanding administrator.feedback

Liz Bowman

The budget prioritizes federal funding for work in infrastructure, air and water quality, and ensuring the safety of chemicals in the marketplace.feedback

Bill Becker

You would have thought the administration would have revised the budget in light of the overwhelming adverse reaction they encountered from previous trial balloons, instead ... they doubled down.feedback

David Bloom

Senior leadership made decisions to allocate the carry-over funds set aside earlier this year to address agency's priorities for incentive payments for workforce reshaping, support for the Office of Enforcement and Compliance (OGC), travel for the Administrator's protective detail, rent, continued space reduction efforts, eDiscovery, agency cloud services and the OGC's workforce support.feedback

Michael Flynn

In light of this guidance, we will begin the steps necessary to initiate an early out/buy out . . . program. Given our resource situation, we will continue a freeze on external hiring. Very limited exceptions to this external hiring freeze may be permitted on a case-by-case basis.feedback

Virginia Ruiz

We were extremely disappointed with the EPA's decision but the administration received a lot of pressure from industry and donors. I don't have much confidence that the current administration will end the use of chlorpyrifos. These are the incidents we are afraid of because workers and their kids are particularly vulnerable to the effects of this pesticide. It's not just the acute incidents but also low level exposures that are harmful to children. It's a double standard to expect farm workers to be exposed to something that's banned from homes.feedback

John D. Paarlberg

Reducing our dependency on fossil fuels and limiting the effects of climate change is one of the greatest moral challenges of our time. For the sake of the most vulnerable among us, for the sake of future generations, for the sake of the planet, please do not undermine the Clean Power Plan and other critical environmental protections.feedback

Karen Sonnessa

Have we failed to learn from history, and forgotten the harm done to our air, water, and wetlands? If anything, regulations need to be more stringent. I remember the days of smog, pollution, and rivers spontaneously combusting. EPA is for the people.feedback

Kristine Anstine

Regulations are PROTECTIONS. Please enforce all existing clean air and water protections and consider creating more.feedback

Scott Pruitt

The agreement will not guarantee or prejudge a particular outcome, but will provide Pebble a fair process for their permit application and help steer EPA away from costly and time-consuming litigation. We are committed to due process and the rule of law, and regulations that are 'regular'. We understand how much the community cares about this issue, with passionate advocates on all sides … We are committed to listening to all voices as this process unfolds.feedback

Raul Grijalva

The Trump administration should listen to the more than 65 percent of Alaskans, 80 percent of Bristol Bay residents and native communities, and 85 percent of commercial fishermen who oppose Pebble Mine.feedback

Ron Thiessen - Pebble

We think we're going to be able to get our permit granted in record time.feedback

Ron Thiessen - Pebble

The Pebble Partnership will advance a progressive mine plan, including mitigation, to be assessed by objective, expert regulators at the US Army Corps of Engineers and a raft of other federal and state agencies – including EPA. Not only are we no longer facing extraordinary development restrictions at Pebble, we will also be assured a fair and predictable permitting review of our proposed development plan.feedback

Taryn Kiekow Heimer - Natural Resources Defense Council

Bristol Bay is too important – economically, environmentally, and culturally – to be sacrificed for the sake of a mine. The Trump administration's willingness to set aside that proposed determination is a disaster. Instead of making America great, it risks America's greatest wild salmon runs.feedback

Alannah Hurley

If there's damage to the watershed and the fisheries, then it would be devastating to our identity as indigenous people. For the company to paint it as federal intervention is completely misleading. The people of Bristol Bay basically cried out to EPA to help us.feedback

Brett Hartl

It obviously sends a psychological message to big mining companies that if they were nervous about getting permits in the past ... that this is their golden opportunity to get their mine through the process.feedback

Luke Popovich

I think the public is in no danger of seeing genuine environmental protection diminished. We're simply asking for a more efficient process.feedback

Tom Collier - Pebble

It will be a busy and exciting year for Pebble and Alaska. Not only will we be rolling out a project that is smaller, with demonstrable environmental protections, we will also be announcing a number of new initiatives to ensure our project is more responsive to the priorities and concerns of Alaskans. We know the Pebble Project must not only protect the world-class fisheries of Bristol Bay, it must also benefit the people of the region and the state in a meaningful way. It is our intent to demonstrate how we will meet those goals in the period ahead.feedback

Wilbur Ross

A company shouldn't have to be hundreds of millions of dollars into risk money without knowing whether there is a real chance it is going to get approved. So one of the problems is the regulation itself. And some of those regulatory problems are at the state and local level.feedback

Wilbur Ross

On permitting, there are a lot of things. Mostly EPA-related issues. Well, if you can imagine that if they (EPA) torture you with getting a permit for a porta potty, how about a permit to actually drill a well? That whole mindset has got to change. They've been eight years trying to get permits to do it. There's been hundreds of millions of dollars (spent), and they still don't even have the assurance that they will get it.feedback

Robert Richardson

It's a very apolitical board. We never discussed politics. We never discussed regulations or proposed regulations. It's just reacting to science outputs and giving recommendations. Doing something like this has no practical effect on regulatory reform, but it may send some message to the administration's base that, We're getting rid of these scientists.feedback

Paula Olsiewski

We're scientists reading nerdy reports, meeting with other brilliant scientists, talking about particle size or spore size. The work [we were] doing is very, very technical. This isn't light reading. But this is very important research. What do you do with dead birds? What do you do with Ebola waste?feedback

Robert Richardson

Our board's responsibility is to review science, to review the scientific outputs [of the EPA Office of Research and Development]. Posters, papers, decision support tools, things of that nature. This is completely separate from the regulatory side of the house.feedback

Courtney Flint

This came as a surprise. I was told that the agency plans to carry out a competitive nomination process to solicit new members. No other reason was given.feedback

Megan J. Palmer

I would say… the country needs more people who have that experience. There aren't many people who study how to manage waste after a biological incident.feedback

Megan J. Palmer

Dr. Paula Olsiewski has a unique and deep level of expertise in biosecurity. She provided support and leadership, through her programs at the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, for activities that have formed a basis for current approaches to biosecurity.feedback

Courtney Flint

It's clear from the reports in the media that the current administration has said that they want to replace board positions held by academic scientists with members from industry, so I do not think I am speculating when I say that this is a political move.feedback

Paula Olsiewski

It may be surprising that two women were leading the homeland security committee. But if you were to review our resumés, you would see we're highly skilled, with deep experience and subject-matter expertise. I'm not saying that this is gender-based, but it has been shown that science gets done best when it's done by diverse teams.feedback

Paula Olsiewski

When bird flu hit various poultry farmers, and you're the farmer, where do you go for advice? All these chickens and turkeys have to go somewhere after you euthanize a flock. What do you do with that waste so it doesn't contaminate other flocks? The EPA's homeland-security research team figured out what to do. This is not sexy research.feedback

Robert Richardson

The research takes place, and you hope there's someone at the top asking, What have we learned from the science, so that it can shape policy?' But we didn't discuss that [on the board], and it's outside of our purview.feedback

Courtney Flint

I do not think I am speculating when I say that this is a political move.feedback

J.P. Freire

We're not going to rubber-stamp the last administration's appointees. Instead, they should participate in the same open competitive process as the rest of the applicant pool. This approach is what was always intended for the board, and we're making a clean break with the last administration's approach.feedback

J.P. Freire

Advisory panels like BOSC play a critical role reviewing the agency's work. EPA received hundreds of nominations to serve on the board, and we want to ensure fair consideration of all the nominees -- including those nominated who may have previously served on the panel -- and carry out a competitive nomination process. No one has been fired or terminated.feedback

Robert Richardson

The science will show the impact of a particular chemical or toxic substance, but we would never say it should be banned or regulated in a particular way. The EPA's mission is to protect human health and the environment. It is not to minimize cost to industry.feedback

Deborah Swackhamer

There's hiring freeze, so we can't actually replace them until EPA says it's OK. We're kind of hobbled, to say the least. ... They have essentially said they will look to industry scientists for much of their advice.feedback

Robert Richardson

This is a significant step toward the erosion of science, and I think that it is happening subtly throughout the agency.feedback

Tom Toles

In another display of bare-knuckled, unprincipled ruthlessness, Scott Pruitt of Donald Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency has a solution to the stubborn nature of facts: Replace the scientists who assess those facts with people who will tell you what you want to hear. That’s right — the agenda now is to begin removing actual scientists from the EPA’s Board of Science Counselors and replace them with non-academics. The idea is to replace “the academic scientists with representatives from industries whose pollution the agency is supposed to regulate.”.feedback

Deborah Swackhamer

We have spirited conversations about the science – we don't just rubber-stamp what the EPA wants to do. These people are valuable, highly qualified and highly vetted. It's troubling that political considerations have come into this.feedback

Deborah Swackhamer

This administration has made statements not terribly favorable to science. There would be a morality issue if the committee is turned into a political pawn of a certain viewpoint. Our credibility would be destroyed. We would be seen within the scientific community as tainted.feedback

share this quote